Just got this in my mailbox:

North Korea tells U.S. it has secret nuclear program, senior Bush administration official says. Details to come.

I guess this makes North Korea just as 'dangerous' as Iraq. :eek2:

Who did you receive this from?

North Korea tells U.S. it has secret nuclear program

Sounds fishy. Why would N. Korea tell the U.S. that it has a nuclear program? :eek:

Its on al of the news websites now as "breaking news"

Wow, that's 'wierd'.

A link to CNN's article here: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/10/16/nkorea.nuclear.reut/index.html

Pretty short and brief. :(

umm im pretty sure we knew they had bio/nuke weapons...

What is so secret about that. We have known it for years.

Is this supposed to surprise us all? They have been at this for ages.

How dare they do this, foulllllllllll U.S. MUST ATTACK THEM NOW!! THEY ARE TERRORISTS!!! FOULLL

The U.S. must control everyone and defend every broken agreement. CONFORM and OBEY or your a TERRORIST!

Can't wait for Bush to attack Iraq so China can invade Taiwan.

Then we can try to bully them.

LOL

What's with all this rubbish.... it seems that the US thinks they're the only country that are allowed to be a Nuclear power.

If North Korea really wanted to hide the fact that they have a "secret nuclear program" then they wouldn't tell the US - as simple as that.

--Shaun

koreans .............:angry: .............eh just kidding

United States Efforts to Undermine the International Criminal Court (http://hrw.org/campaigns/icc/docs/art98analysis.htm)

The more and more I go digging up information about what we the United States are doing the more and more I get pissed off about it.

What else comes to mind is why don't we just get rid of the Civil Police and have the military just Police us. People just sit back and say oh well someone has to catch this sniper.

This whole political process is out of control, the government is out of control.

Which lier should we vote in office? the worst or the least worst.

Everyone and their mother has nuclear weapons...But it doesnt matter. The U.S. pays a group of dudes thousands of dollars to sit at a desk, and once they detect a nuclear weapon fired from elsewhere, they hit a button which counter launches nukes. The world needs to accept the fact that we are all facing death, even if one guy accidently hits a button.

Israel has nuclear weapons. India has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. England has nuclear weapons. US has nuclear weapons.

perhaps we should invade them all to save ourselves

Originally posted by susannad
Israel has nuclear weapons. India has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. England has nuclear weapons. US has nuclear weapons.

perhaps we should invade them all to save ourselves

Yes I think I would like to see us invade ourselves :D

Israel has nuclear weapons. Korea has nuclear weapons. China has nuclear weapons. US to attack Israel because they possess them. Never mind Korea and China? :confused:

Originally posted by multipleimage


Yes I think I would like to see us invade ourselves :D

I think s/he is refering to the world.

REVOLUTION

The way we are headed now, I can see it within my lifetime.

THE US SHOULD BE NEXT! They have all of the above...it'll be funny seeing them nuking themselves.

Hey, USA was the only one who used nuclear weapons ;)

Originally posted by Newbie


I think s/he is refering to the world.

REVOLUTION

The way we are headed now, I can see it within my lifetime.

I was talking with my friend about that, I think that we will see it in not too many years.

Something interesting:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/deployment/


The US has 12,000 nuclear warheads and is the only country with nuclear weapons deployed outside its borders.
The UK has 380 nuclear warheads.
France has 450 nuclear warheads.
Russia has 22,500 nuclear warheads.
Israel refuses to confirm or deny the widespread belief that it has the bomb, but it is believed to have over 100 atomic weapons.
The US has done a total of 1,030 nuclear tests.
The UK has done a total of 45 nuclear tests.
France has done a total of 210 nuclear tests.
Russia has done a total of 715 nuclear tests.

Here's a tough question:

How many times can we blow earth into 2 pieces?

Marc, that link its about the cold war, Russia has deactivated a lot of nuclear warheads since the perestroika

We have that covered under a plan.. I don't think the government thinks the world would end. LMAO

Executive Order 11490
Assigning emergency preparedness functions to Federal
departments and agencies
WHEREAS our national security is dependent upon our ability to assure continuity of government, at every level, in any national emergency type situation that might conceivably confront the nation; and
WHEREAS effective national preparedness planning to meet such an emergency, including a massive nuclear attack, is essential to our national survival;


Originally posted by Kiwi
Something interesting:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/deployment/


The US has 12,000 nuclear warheads and is the only country with nuclear weapons deployed outside its borders.
The UK has 380 nuclear warheads.
France has 450 nuclear warheads.
Russia has 22,500 nuclear warheads.
Israel refuses to confirm or deny the widespread belief that it has the bomb, but it is believed to have over 100 atomic weapons.
The US has done a total of 1,030 nuclear tests.
The UK has done a total of 45 nuclear tests.
France has done a total of 210 nuclear tests.
Russia has done a total of 715 nuclear tests.

Here's a tough question:

How many times can we blow earth into 2 pieces?

Fortunatelly, I live in the south of the world, there are not nuclear weapons or objetives here yet (The USA want to put nuclear weapons in Ushuaia with the ALCA) , if the war start, please don't come here, this is a nice place to live yet :)

well, cnn is already on the reactionary charge. they've done 2 live reports from the US nuclear bunkers in the midwest, describing what would happen "in case of nuclear war". unbelievable.


for newbie, try out http://www.bushwatch.net it will raise a few more points for you to be upset about.

North Korea could be a threat to South Korea though, and that's somethign that people will have to deal with if South Korea can not deal with it on their own. Strange relationship those two have...

Stupid ass communists can't even feed their own people, yet they can spend millions upon millions on developing a nuclear program.

True, however much of the money we spend on weapons could go to other things as well. I suppose the difference being that poverty is more widespread in North Korea than here.

Odd that they talk about reunification and taking down borders (which has happened), and at the same time a few bombs get tossed up and back from time to time.

Yes, but we can't overlook the true differences, such as their record on human rights. I'm admittedly biased though, my Grandfather got shot up by one of the little commie bastards.

just because their values are different, doesn't mean they're wrong. Shouldn't they be investing at least a little to defend themselves?

I won't claim to be any great war planner or tell you that I have tremendous knowledge of the area, however just from looking on a map (see attached), it seems that South Korea would be at a disadvantage somewhat due to them being backed against the water and the capital being close to the border of North Korea. ALso, North Korea has vast woodlands and undeveloped areas and spreads out to the North, expanding against China. I'm not sure what their military capabilites are.

hence a reason to strengthen it

Originally posted by skylab
well, cnn is already on the reactionary charge. they've done 2 live reports from the US nuclear bunkers in the midwest, describing what would happen "in case of nuclear war". unbelievable.


for newbie, try out http://www.bushwatch.net it will raise a few more points for you to be upset about.

It's not about 1 person it's about the government in whole. I'm not into politics, I believe in freedoms and peoples rights as they disappear each and every day with each and every new law. To get anything done you need to lobby which means bribe.

There is no longer a WE THE PEOPLE, it's We the government. I would love to see one day where no one votes in a president, oh wait your vote doesn't count anyways you DO NOT vote for a president.

It's a wonder why people do not vote and we have low voter turnout. It doesn't matter it doesn't count and when it does count which lier are you going to vote in office to listen to lobbiest and take bribes and pay offs.

GRRRR

Originally posted by Jedito
Marc, that link its about the cold war, Russia has deactivated a lot of nuclear warheads since the perestroika

That is the current amount of nuclear warheads. They've had 40,000 i believe during the cold war crisis.

Originally posted by MDJ2000
Yes, but we can't overlook the true differences, such as their record on human rights. I'm admittedly biased though, my Grandfather got shot up by one of the little commie bastards.

Ah...the old Human rights gambit....

Saudi Arabia beheads people in Public......America Elecricutes or Gases People....

Sounds the same to me.

Simon

Can't wait for Bush to attack Iraq so China can invade Taiwan.

What exactly do you mean? You want Taiwan to be invaded by China?

:angry:

We won't be attacking North Korea. There's no oil there.

We won't be attacking North Korea. There's no oil there. Hehe. :D

Actually, there is: http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nk-oil.htm

Originally posted by SimonMc


Ah...the old Human rights gambit....

Saudi Arabia beheads people in Public......America Elecricutes or Gases People....

Sounds the same to me.

Simon

:rolleyes: If you can not tell the difference between the two, then you are horribly uneducated to the facts my friend.

An estimated 400,000 political prisoners have died in North Korean "Death Camps" reminiscent of Hitler and Stalin.

USA is all against nuclear bombs and 'weapons of massive destuction' but how come they are the only one that has ever used one :rolleyes:.

Originally posted by progex


What exactly do you mean? You want Taiwan to be invaded by China?

:angry:

Two front war if China moves on Taiwan, But all bets off now since North Korea belted Bush in the mouth with Nukes, LOL

Originally posted by MDJ2000


:rolleyes: If you can not tell the difference between the two, then you are horribly uneducated to the facts my friend.

An estimated 400,000 political prisoners have died in North Korean "Death Camps" reminiscent of Hitler and Stalin.

Camp Xray.....Death camps.....uhm...again...sounds the same to me.

Simon

Congrats, you've taken ignorance to a new level!

Originally posted by Kiwi


That is the current amount of nuclear warheads. They've had 40,000 i believe during the cold war crisis.

Sorry, my mistake, I read "Who Has What" and hence my confusion.

Well I would not put USA in same boat with Saudi's iro human rights. But the death penalty comparison is fair. The jsutice systems may be very different but I think capitla punishment is wrong.

PLus it is public to extent in USA peopel sit and watch it from behind screens etc, pretty sick if you ask me. If we had not got rid of it in UK hundreds of innocent people would have been put to death. Plus does the govenro not make final decision.........political interfering etc.

Also the recent carry on with not wanting US personnel to subject to law in Serbia etc is dodgy. AS is detainign all these terrorists (accused) without legal representation or evne as POW's, they hav eno rights basically. Now may of them might have been up to despicable acts but you onlyu weaken your authority by not gicing them proper rights.

I agree about China they are depserate to have an excuse to have a go at Taiwan.

Also though I have no love for Sadam and be happy to see him out (if power vacumn is properly filled and not another fiasco like Afghanistan) I think his nuclear capability is way over stated. The documents talking about 1 year etc, refer to him getting all the parts from overseas. They are like 10 years off home made. Plus they don't have any intercontinental ballistic missiles. In fact I thinkall they have lef tis ones with like 200km range.

But as I say I would nto be against invading Iraq, but put some pressure on Israel too, else the Arab reaction will be very hostile to the USA and UK. Could send the region into chaos.

North Koreans, I don't see them doing anythign too soon, though China may get itchy feet over this.

Rant over ;)

if you think camp xray is the same as a death camp then you have very serious problems lol. its a detention centre, none of the human rights of the detainees have been violated according to the red cross inspectors, im not quite so certain north korean death camps were so often passed by the red cross lol.

Well if n reply to my bit, I did nto make that comparison. I pointed out that it is abuse of their human rights. Not to have legal representation etc. They have no status as such. This is wrong.

Not a matter of comparing, that misses the point. It is like saying after you shoot someone in the leg, well he shot him in the head tha tis much worse. the whole point surley is to lead by example...imho

How'd we move out of war and into human rights? My opinion is there should be a higher level of evidence before capital punishment. IE:: it gets caught on camera, etc. This way innocent people arent put to death. I do believe in capital punishment. If you kill a cashier for a few buck, then you die next and you deserve it.

As for nukes, the U.S. has first hand experience with using them. We also have firsthand experience in helping cleanup afterwards. I Sadam nuked Israel, do you think he would go in and help them recover and put their government back on it's feet like we did with Japan? I highly doubt it. Why you use the nukes is a biggy. When we bombed Japan, we did it because we had no other option. Too many of our men were dying. Had we not nuked Japan, we would not have had enough military to defeat Germany. We would have lost WWII and Hitler would have been king.

Last but not least.....everyone has nuked. It's the warhead delivery technology we are concerned about. Right now, no-one but China has the ability to hit the U.S. via a missile. We want it to stay that way. This way, we only have to monitor China's missiles so closely.

...and last...someone said we pay people to sit at a desk and monitor for incoming missiles. Yes we have a defense shield, but trying to knock a missile out of the sky with another isnt that easy. You should know that from Desert Storm....some scuds still got through. Imiagine if you will.....one person shoots a bullet at you, you take your gun and try to knock that bullet out of the air with your own bullet. You have three things against you.

1) Time limit before his bullet hits you
2) Knowing exactly where his bullet is.
3) The accuracy of your own aim.

Now account for smart technology. Assume his bullet is able to change it's position at random points instead of going in a straight line. It just got a whole helluva lot harder for you. Trying to shoot a warhead out of the sky with another missile is pretty much the same thing.

I seriously doubt though, that we would use missiles to knock out an incoming warhead. We would probably use our ground based lasers. Of course, if the incoming stays low enough or the laser misses, or the circuitry fries again(system bug like that Phalanx system had), we would have to use anti-warhead missiles. Or if the incoming wasnt detected soon enough, there wouldnt be enough time to power up the lasers anyway. (they take a while because they require so much juice)

cant russia bomb the usa? surely it has the weapons as well as china.
otherwise yes i agree with pretty much all you said.

Originally posted by Webdude
How'd we move out of war and into human rights? My opinion is there should be a higher level of evidence before capital punishment. IE:: it gets caught on camera, etc. This way innocent people arent put to death. I do believe in capital punishment. If you kill a cashier for a few buck, then you die next and you deserve it.

As for nukes, the U.S. has first hand experience with using them. We also have firsthand experience in helping cleanup afterwards. I Sadam nuked Israel, do you think he would go in and help them recover and put their government back on it's feet like we did with Japan? I highly doubt it. Why you use the nukes is a biggy. When we bombed Japan, we did it because we had no other option. Too many of our men were dying. Had we not nuked Japan, we would not have had enough military to defeat Germany. We would have lost WWII and Hitler would have been king.

Huh? :eek:

The bomb in Hiroshima was drop on August 6, 1945, Hitler commited suicide on April 30th, 1945, Germany surrendered unconditionally on the 7th May, 1945. How can been Hitler a menace on august 6 then?

Your argument to nuke japan its completely false
Research/investigate how and why started the war USA-Japan, do not believe all the bull**** of the Perl Harbor movie

Originally posted by Chicken
North Korea could be a threat to South Korea though, and that's somethign that people will have to deal with if South Korea can not deal with it on their own. Strange relationship those two have...

North Korea is more of a threat to Japan - huge hatred between the Japanese and North Koreans. The US is getting involved because the weapons technology that N. Korea has could possibly strike Hawaii or Alaska.

The US are pissed about this despite knowing the Koreans had this technology, because back in 1994 the N Koreans promised not to make nuclear war heads. Thats just as bad as Canada offering India nuclear weapons technology with a promise that no warheads would be made.

Politically this puts a whole new spin on Iraq and Bush's "Axis of Evil". He is now being accused of being hypocritical because he is looking for a diplomatic solution to N. Korea and yet he is set to destroy Iraq for WDM's when the N Koreans already have them. Granted the geopolitical area is very different between those countries in the world, and the dynamics of their neighbours differ as well.

As a side note - US congress is rejecting the Hard Line UN resolution put forth by the Bush Administration. They are now looking at France's plan to let UN weapons inspectors do their job and should Saddam be beligerant this time around a coalition force would be deployed. So far support has come from Britain France and Russia. Seems promising. Gerhardt Shroeder already sealed his fate - he's not going to war lest he lose support for himself having won the German election. Unless something dramatic happens in Germany (terrorist attack or proof of Iraqi involvment in terrorism) they won't go to war, although they are not going to openly oppose it either.

Originally posted by richy
cant russia bomb the usa? surely it has the weapons as well as china.
otherwise yes i agree with pretty much all you said.

Why would Russia want to bomb the US?? They need the US's help in Chechnya.
China has huge US markets running their economy - if China attacked the US those markets would be frozen and China would once again plunge into the depths of communism. Where do you think we get all that cheap labour from??

Heres a question - would you want to bomb the US?? Take into account population, technology, and its allies. (NATO) You got a biiiiig problem on your hands if you did.

Originally posted by Jedito


Huh? :eek:

The bomb in Hiroshima was drop on August 6, 1945, Hitler commited suicide on April 30th, 1945, Germany surrendered unconditionally on the 7th May, 1945. How can been Hitler a menace on august 6 then?

Your argument to nuke japan its completely false
Research/investigate how and why started the war USA-Japan, do not believe all the bull**** of the Perl Harbor movie

I'll explain it....

Back in 1930's the great depression had finally consumed the world. Japan was in dire need of raw materials, and under a totalitarian Diety (Hirohito) the people went to war for imperialistic purposes - this was what preceeded the Japanese invasion of Manchuria (Called the forgotten holocaust). Japan destroyed northern China and began using the rich resources that were found in Manchuria. For the Japanese this was not enough, they needed more raw materials to keep their economy viable. So they decided to attack the Phillipine Islands - this was a major problem because the US had a couple military bases throughout Indonesia. Surely an attack on the Phillipines would mean total destruction of Japan because of the infinately large US army. So to damage the US's ability to retaliate Japan decided to cripple the US Navy at Pearl harbour - the largest naval port of the United States. They calculated that a successful attack of Pearl Harbour would give them 2 years to before the US could possibly retaliate. Unfortunately for the Japanese both US Carriers were out at sea on exercise manouvers. Had the Japanese sunk the US Carriers Japan surely would have had 2 years to build their army and armaments enough that they could defend against a retalitory attack. With the damage done by the attack at Pearl Harbour, the Japanese only had 6 months to prepare for a US retaliation. Not nearly what they had predicted.
And so goes the rest of the war....

Truman really didn't know what he was getting himself into, Roosevelt had died just months before and Truman was only a figurehead. He didn't know what was going on in the US government. He was told of the Manhattan project only after Roosevelts death, and he wasn't particularly ecstatic that he used it. This was not a "sure lets nuke em all" decision. Truman agonized over this decision, while his advisors - particularly Curtis Le May urged him to use the bomb. Truman eventually decided too many lives had been lost in the war and something needed to be done.
I agree Jedito no the US couldn't have lost the war in Europe, because it was already over. :stickout: Better get back to them textbooks Webdude. :rolleyes: Or not post at all unless you have your facts straight.

Originally posted by Hostkookster


. Surely an attack on the Phillipines would mean total destruction of Japan because of the infinately large US army. So to damage the US's ability to retaliate Japan decided to cripple the US Navy at Pearl harbour - the largest naval port of the United States. They calculated that a successful attack of Pearl Harbour would give them 2 years to before the US could possibly retaliate. Unfortunately for the Japanese both US Carriers were out at sea on exercise manouvers. Had the Japanese sunk the US Carriers Japan surely would have had 2 years to build their army and armaments enough that they could defend against a retalitory attack. With the damage done by the attack at Pearl Harbour, the Japanese only had 6 months to prepare for a US retaliation. Not nearly what they had predicted.
And so goes the rest of the war....


Guess what? I disagree with you :)

The attack to Pearl Harbour was provoked when USA sunked a japanese ship.
USA knew that Japan would attack Peal Harbour, that's why they moved the biggest part of the USA ships out there.
Why did USA let the japanese attack pealr harbour?
The USA population was against the intervention on the WW II, the attack to pearl harbour was the perfect excuse to get the "approbation" of them.

Originally posted by Jedito


... USA knew that Japan would attack Peal Harbour, that's why they moved the biggest part of the USA ships out there.
Why did USA let the japanese attack pealr harbour?
The USA population was against the intervention on the WW II, the attack to pearl harbour was the perfect excuse to get the "approbation" of them. I love the way people on this forum state such silly fringe theories as fact. It borders on idiocy. Half the pacific fleet was in Pearl Harbor you *****.

In 50 years, it will be dumbasses like this, that will be saying "The US knew Al Qaeda was going to destroy the WTC and attack the Pentagon resulting in the death of thousands, um, so they could like go and fight the Taliban".

MDJ2000 why don't shut your ****ing mouth up if you'll only talk ****s?

The biggest and newest part of the USA pacific fleet was moved out of Pearl Harbour before the attack, *****.


In 50 years, it will be dumbasses like this, that will be saying "The US knew Al Qaeda was going to destroy the WTC and attack the Pentagon resulting in the death of thousands, um, so they could like go and fight the Taliban".
You don't have to wait 50 years, some people already say that now.

So they left the other half to be destroyed? What a brilliant tactic...use your head.

How long do we think this thread will remian open if we continue to flame eachother? Not very long is my guess.

Topic is North Korea for those of you who have lost track...

Can you read? if yes, then read.

Jedito I find this theory of yours really out there.

So the US allowed Japan to destroy most of their bettleship fleet just to prove a point to its citizens??

Pearl Harbour is a major naval station - The ships patrol the pacific ocean. In this theory of your when do the American's attack a Japanese ship? This attack on Pearl harbour was months even years in the making - do you think the Japanese came up with this plan over night?? It was perfectly carried out this was not a retalitory attack that was made on a spur the moment decision.

This theory is completely wrong - Yamamoto was the Japanese general who devised the plan which took months and months of intelligence work by the Japanese - they knew exactly where the ships were, and what to attack. America didn't want to get involved in another European war, they were profiting from it big time without having to sacrifice troops. The US didn't anticipate an attack on an early Sunday morning, and there were several subtle signs of a japanese invasion which the US didn't pick up on.

Jedito please explain your theory in more detail, i'm sure we are all very interested in what it is???

Originally posted by Chicken

Topic is North Korea for those of you who have lost track...

Hostkookster, feel free to email me to jorgec@downtownhost.com to continue this conversation :)

I'll PM you...

Originally posted by Kiwi

The US has 12,000 nuclear warheads and is the only country with nuclear weapons deployed outside its borders.
The UK has 380 nuclear warheads.
Not sure about the rest of the countries, however the US can launch nuclear warheads in three ways, either - silo launched, sub launched from Triton subs or air launched cruise missiles from B-52. On 9/11 The US actually scrambled many nuclear armed B-52's from Diego Garcia. As for UK nukes, they are all sub launched war heads. The delivery vehicle (Tomahawk) used to launch UK nukes was actually given to the UK by the US.